Largest 6 GOP states vs largest 6 Dem states

[All Along The Watchtower]

In 2012, the largest 6 states that voted for Romney were:

Texas (38 EVs)
Georgia (16 EVs)
North Carolina (15 EVs)
Tennessee (11 EVs)
Indiana (11 EVs)
Arizona (11 EVs)

In terms of the overall total: These six states made up about 49.1% of Romney's total.

The largest 6 states that voted for Obama, on the other hand, were

California (55 EVs)
New York (29 EVs)
Florida (29 EVs)
Illinois (20 EVs)
Pennsylvania (20 EVs)
Ohio (18 EVs)

In terms of the overall total: These six states together made up about 51.5% of Obama's EC total.

Therefore-while Obama relied slightly more on his "Big Six" states, both candidates relied on their "Big Six" states for about half their EC totals.

[Blue3]

Yet North Carolina was very close... Georgia was the red state after North Carolina that was closest to voting for Obama... and the GOP in Texas remains worried that Texas will become a purple-blue state by 2020.

And the Democrats hardly need to worry about any of their own states. (Maybe some in the Midwest, but they're not nearly as big of a concern as North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas are to the GOP).

When those 3 become as blue as New Mexico and Nevada are now... the GOP as we know it is finished in national politics.

[Spamage]

Yet North Carolina was very close... Georgia was the red state after North Carolina that was closest to voting for Obama... and the GOP in Texas remains worried that Texas will become a purple-blue state by 2020.

And the Democrats hardly need to worry about any of their own states. (Maybe some in the Midwest, but they're not nearly as big of a concern as North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas are to the GOP).

When those 3 become as blue as New Mexico and Nevada are now... the GOP as we know it is finished in national politics.

To say the GOP is finished is an incorrect argument. Texas hasn't been shifting dem as much as the party would like it to and they've lost the vast majority of statewide elections there in recent years. That, coupled with the fact that Hispanics vote less and are more conservative in Texas could spell problems for the Democrats.

North Carolina will become a swing state, if it does become solid blue then it will be in several more election cycles and by then the GOP may be adjusting its policies and rhetoric from where they are at present. Georgia will also probably be a while, maybe longer than NC.

On the other hand you quickly dismiss the fact that the GOP is improving in the Midwest faster than the democrats are in the South. Pennsylvania may remain a fools gold state for a few more elections but eventually, if population loss continues, that state may vote republican. Iowa and Wisconsin also appear favorable to the GOP with time. The fact is the map is changing, but our 2 party system isn't. If the GOP could make it back from the FDR landslides and the Democrats from the Reagan landslides, both parties for the foreseeable future are here to stay.

[Blue3]

Yet North Carolina was very close... Georgia was the red state after North Carolina that was closest to voting for Obama... and the GOP in Texas remains worried that Texas will become a purple-blue state by 2020.

And the Democrats hardly need to worry about any of their own states. (Maybe some in the Midwest, but they're not nearly as big of a concern as North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas are to the GOP).

When those 3 become as blue as New Mexico and Nevada are now... the GOP as we know it is finished in national politics.

To say the GOP is finished is an incorrect argument. Texas hasn't been shifting dem as much as the party would like it to and they've lost the vast majority of statewide elections there in recent years. That, coupled with the fact that Hispanics vote less and are more conservative in Texas could spell problems for the Democrats.

North Carolina will become a swing state, if it does become solid blue then it will be in several more election cycles and by then the GOP may be adjusting its policies and rhetoric from where they are at present. Georgia will also probably be a while, maybe longer than NC.

On the other hand you quickly dismiss the fact that the GOP is improving in the Midwest faster than the democrats are in the South. Pennsylvania may remain a fools gold state for a few more elections but eventually, if population loss continues, that state may vote republican. Iowa and Wisconsin also appear favorable to the GOP with time. The fact is the map is changing, but our 2 party system isn't. If the GOP could make it back from the FDR landslides and the Democrats from the Reagan landslides, both parties for the foreseeable future are here to stay.

I didn't say they were finished now.

I said that if those 3 states become as reliable for Democrats as New Mexico and Nevada, then the national GOP as we know it is finished.

I think you're overestimate their chances in the Midwest, but even if you switch Texas's 38 EV for Iowa's 6 EV, that's still pretty good for the Democrats.

Yes, the Democrats have a lot of groundwork to do in Texas. Right now, the Protestant Hispanics are more likely to be registered and likely voters than Catholic Hispanics, and the Protestant Hispanics are more likely to vote Republican. If the Democrats can get their ground game together with registration and GOTV, they'll be a very powerful force that will really shake up Texas on the state and national scales. It will probably happen  by 2020, 2024 at the latest.

Oh, and North Carolina already is a swing state. Was in 2012. Was in 2008.

[Spamage]

Yet North Carolina was very close... Georgia was the red state after North Carolina that was closest to voting for Obama... and the GOP in Texas remains worried that Texas will become a purple-blue state by 2020.

And the Democrats hardly need to worry about any of their own states. (Maybe some in the Midwest, but they're not nearly as big of a concern as North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas are to the GOP).

When those 3 become as blue as New Mexico and Nevada are now... the GOP as we know it is finished in national politics.

To say the GOP is finished is an incorrect argument. Texas hasn't been shifting dem as much as the party would like it to and they've lost the vast majority of statewide elections there in recent years. That, coupled with the fact that Hispanics vote less and are more conservative in Texas could spell problems for the Democrats.

North Carolina will become a swing state, if it does become solid blue then it will be in several more election cycles and by then the GOP may be adjusting its policies and rhetoric from where they are at present. Georgia will also probably be a while, maybe longer than NC.

On the other hand you quickly dismiss the fact that the GOP is improving in the Midwest faster than the democrats are in the South. Pennsylvania may remain a fools gold state for a few more elections but eventually, if population loss continues, that state may vote republican. Iowa and Wisconsin also appear favorable to the GOP with time. The fact is the map is changing, but our 2 party system isn't. If the GOP could make it back from the FDR landslides and the Democrats from the Reagan landslides, both parties for the foreseeable future are here to stay.

I didn't say they were finished now.

I said that if those 3 states become as reliable for Democrats as New Mexico and Nevada, then the national GOP as we know it is finished.

I think you're overestimate their chances in the Midwest, but even if you switch Texas's 38 EV for Iowa's 6 EV, that's still pretty good for the Democrats.

Yes, the Democrats have a lot of groundwork to do in Texas. Right now, the Protestant Hispanics are more likely to be registered and likely voters than Catholic Hispanics, and the Protestant Hispanics are more likely to vote Republican. If the Democrats can get their ground game together with registration and GOTV, they'll be a very powerful force that will really shake up Texas on the state and national scales. It will probably happen  by 2020, 2024 at the latest.

Oh, and North Carolina already is a swing state. Was in 2012. Was in 2008.

Sorry about the NC bit, I'm deliriously tired

[mattyman]

When those 3 become as blue as New Mexico and Nevada are now... the GOP as we know it is finished in national politics.

Your assuming other states aren't moving into the Republicans column. Assuming others don't trend into the GOP column then your quite right. It look as though the electoral map may get tougher for the GOP but it's certainly not over if they loose those states (PA, MI, WI, MN). I'm still not convinced that Texas will flip as easily as some make it out.

[opebo]

In 2012, the largest 6 states that voted for Romney were:

Texas (38 EVs)
Georgia (16 EVs)
North Carolina (15 EVs)
Tennessee (11 EVs)
Indiana (11 EVs)
Arizona (11 EVs)

In terms of the overall total: These six states made up about 49.1% of Romney's total.

The largest 6 states that voted for Obama, on the other hand, were

California (55 EVs)
New York (29 EVs)
Florida (29 EVs)
Illinois (20 EVs)
Pennsylvania (20 EVs)
Ohio (18 EVs)

In terms of the overall total: These six states together made up about 51.5% of Obama's EC total.

Therefore-while Obama relied slightly more on his "Big Six" states, both candidates relied on their "Big Six" states for about half their EC totals.

More to the point, two of Obama's states - Ohio and Florida (47 total), are complete tossups, unlikely to go with a Democratic candidate in an even election, while Pennsylvania (20) is only lean-Democrat.  Among the Republican's big states, only North Carolina (15) is lean Republican, while the rest (87) are solidly Republican.  These leaves only CA/IL/NY (104) as solidly Democratic among the big states listed.

So, I don't know how anyone could look at this particularly list and say the situation looks much worse for the Republicans.

[Vosem]

Yet North Carolina was very close... Georgia was the red state after North Carolina that was closest to voting for Obama... and the GOP in Texas remains worried that Texas will become a purple-blue state by 2020.

Texas turning lean-D by 2020 is not really a reasonable fear. Texas is trending that way but assuming it continues to do so at current rates, which is basically never correct when dealing with more than a few years into the future, it'll still take more than a decade.

And the Democrats hardly need to worry about any of their own states. (Maybe some in the Midwest, but they're not nearly as big of a concern as North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas are to the GOP).

A swing of a bit more than 5% towards Romney would have won him the election. A much larger swing would've been needed to flip Georgia, never even mind Texas. And the South is a lot more polarized than the rest of the nation; a swing of 8-9% to Obama wouldn't be uniform and probably still wouldn't be enough to flip Georgia.

When those 3 become as blue as New Mexico and Nevada are now... the GOP as we know it is finished in national politics.

When the entire country magically starts voting Republican the Democrats will be finished.

To say the GOP is finished is an incorrect argument. Texas hasn't been shifting dem as much as the party would like it to and they've lost the vast majority of statewide elections there in recent years.

The last time the Democrats won a statewide election in TX was Lt. Gov. in 1994. Since the 1998 elections took effect (early 1999) no Democrat has held statewide office in Texas.

Your assuming other states aren't moving into the Republicans column. Assuming others don't trend into the GOP column then your quite right. It look as though the electoral map may get tougher for the GOP but it's certainly not over if they loose those states (PA, MI, WI, MN).

I'm not certain MN belongs on that list, as it and the Dakotas have their own, unique political culture which doesn't seem to be moving towards the Republicans, but certainly the other three are headed in that direction, albeit slowly. I doubt Republicans will win MI or WI in a presidential election anytime soon except in a landslide or with a native son, and MN at all. PA, on the other hand, is basically a swing-state and is probably less polarized than CO; without shifts to the electoral map (which always occur, so take this with a grain of salt) PA may be necessary to a modern Republican presidential victory.

I'm still not convinced that Texas will flip as easily as some make it out.

The case for the Future Democratic Ascendancy of Texas^TM is basically "let's assume current demographic trends continue for another 10-15 years, then it'll be a swing state, and then if they do another 10-15 years it'll be likely D". The thing is that demographic trends are never constant.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Like I've said before, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are genuine swing states, but they always end up going for the Dems at the last minute, like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.  Republicans always think they have a chance to carry one or more of those states, but somehow they always come up short, even when the polls are close.

[DS0816]

Like I've said before, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are genuine swing states, but they always end up going for the Dems at the last minute, like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.  Republicans always think they have a chance to carry one or more of those states, but somehow they always come up short, even when the polls are close.

If you believe what the news media tells you, they're "genuine swing states."

Since the 1950s, Pennsylvania has had a Democratic tilt. Every Republican who carried it won it with a statewide margin less than how they performed nationally. And every winning Democrat has carried the state of Pa. … and by a statewide margin greater their national margins.

Wisconsin hasn't voted for a Republican since Ronald Reagan's 49-state landslide re-election in 1984.

And of the three, it is Michigan with the deepest blue as the state is now at least five points more so than how the nation votes. It looked like a swing state on the level of a bellwether in 1984 and 1988; that's because the margins for Mich. were incredibly close to the national numbers. Then Bill Clinton won it in a Democratic pickup as he unseated George Bush in 1992. Since then Mich. has been 2 (1992), 5 (1996, 2000), 6 (2004), 9 (2008), and 6 (2012) points bluer than the national margins.

Look at the past electoral maps, when Democrats had the south and Republicans the north, northeast (etc). We saw Pa., Mich., and Wis. continuously voting the same; voting for the Republicans. In fact, every winning Republican carried Pa. and Mich. from the party's first victory, with Abraham Lincoln in 1860, through Dwight Eisenhower's re-election in 1956. Richard Nixon was the first prevailing Republican who won, in 1968, without Pa. and Mich. In 1968, Wis. did back Nixon. Wis.'s first occurrence of not voting for a winning GOP came in 1924, when it said no to Calvin Coolidge for native son and Progressive nominee Robert LaFollette. In 1988, Bush became the second Republican to win without Wis. as it flipped for losing Democratic challenger Michael Dukakis. In the next election, a Democratic pickup, Wis. naturally backed Clinton who, while carrying the 10 states (plus District of Columbia) which voted for Dukakis, garnered pickups in 22 states which included both Pa. and Mich. (He won them again, with re-election, in 1996.) In 2000, all three were in the column for the losing Democrat, Al Gore, who did win the popular vote. In 2004, all three were again in the column for a losing Democratic nominee, John Kerry, and they were all on board for the 2008 Democratic pickup winner (and re-elected incumbent of 2012) Barack Obama who, just like Clinton, carried the trio in all his presidential elections.

I don't believe it can be said with a straight face that any of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are swing states like commonly associated with other swing states which, in reality, are a combination of competitive and bellwether states.

[DS0816]

It would be great if I could cut this off at the Top 20; but the Top-21 states ranked in population are the ones with double-digit electoral votes. They total more than two-thirds the 538 electoral votes comprising the 50 states plus District of Columbia.

Using commonly associated party colors, here is where they are at.

01. California, 55
02. Texas, 38
03. New York, 29
04. Florida, 29
05. Illinois, 20
06. Pennyslvania, 20
07. Ohio, 18
08. *Georgia, 16
09. Michigan, 16
10. North Carolina, 15
11. New Jersey, 14
12. Virginia, 13
13. Washington, 12
14. Massachusetts, 11
15. *Arizona, 11
16. Indiana, 11
17. Tennessee, 11
18. *Missouri, 10
19. Maryland, 10
20. Wisconsin, 10
21. Minnesota, 10


Indiana and North Carolina are in italics because they did vote Democratic, in a pickup, to carry in 2008 for Barack Obama. (Ind. is a little tougher to judge while N.C. is trending competitive.) Georgia, Arizona, and Missouri each have an asterisk because the trio, even though Republican for both John McCain and Mitt Romney, saw women carry for Obama at least once. Of the Top-21 states, Republicans carried both genders in Elections 2008 and 2012 with just Texas and Tennessee. (Colorado, coming in at No. 22 with 9 electoral votes, matched the gender-vote percentages in 2008. In 2012, both males and females voted with President Obama.)


The Top 21 states add up to 379 electoral votes. Of these Top-21 states, five of them carried for the Republicans in both 2008 and 2012. They total 86 electoral votes. Of the Top-21 states, 14 of them carried for the Democrats and President Obama in both 2008 and 2012. This included bellwethers Florida and Ohio. But not counting Fla. and Ohio, due to that status, this adds up 207 electoral votes. The states that are either bellwether and those willing to vote for President Obama at least once add up 86 electoral votes.

Percentages:
• Republican [both], 22.69%
• Democratic [both], 54.61%
• Competitive/Bellwether, 22.69%


Let's review their history since the last realigning presidential election of 1968:
• California: last Republican in 1988; underperformance (statewide vs. national margin)
• Texas: last Democratic in 1976
• New York: last Republican in 1984 (Ronald Reagan's 49-state landslide re-election; underperformance in statewide vs. national margin)
• Florida: bellwether (all elections, minus 1960 and 1992, since 1928; since 1928, no Republican has been elected without Fla. Now with their base in the south, they mathematically cannot win without Fla.)
• Illinois: former bellwether last Republican in 1988; underperformance (statewide vs. national margin)
• Pennsylvania: last Republican in 1988; underperformance (statewide vs. national margin)
• Ohio: bellwether state which seems to be the kingmaking state (since 1896 all presidential winners, except in 1944 and 1960, carried the Buckeye State)
• Georgia: poor record, matching statewide vs. presidential winner, over the last 100 years (15 of 26); but it is part of the national tide (Obama won 54 percent of women here in 2008, which was better than the female votes from pickups Fla., Ohio, and Virginia)
• Michigan: last Republican in 1988; its trendline is at least five points bluer than how the country votes in a given presidential election
• North Carolina: trending competitive (it's not so red anymore)
• New Jersey: last Republican in 1988; has voted the same as Calif., Ill., and Vt. (without fail) in every election since 1968; go back to the last 100 years and you can count on the fingers of one hand how often it voted differently from those states plus Pa., Mich., New Englanders Maine and Connecticut, as well as below-mentioned Maryland (just to name a few)
• Virginia: newly established bellwether state; its statewide margin, in 2008 and 2012, was No. 1-closest to President Obama's national margins in his two elections. (Its closest companion: Colorado, with 9 electoral votes, having fallen shy of the listing of double-digit electoral votes.)
• Washington: last Republican in 1984 (Reagan and his 49-state landslide)
• Massachusetts: last Republican in 1984 (Reagan and his 49-state landslide)
• Arizona: Republican tilt since 1960 (before that, it was a bellwether); Obama won over the female vote here in 2012 but the only Democrats to carry it since after World War II were Harry Truman (1948) and Bill Clinton (1996)
• Indiana: voted the same as Va. from the 1950s to 2000s. Many thought 2008, when it colored blue by flipping for President Obama, was a fluke. However, despite the state flipping back to red for Mitt Romney in 2012, it also suffered a counter flip for the U.S. Senate seat, from Republican to Democratic, and I put this state on hold.
• Tennessee: ex-bellwether now partisan-IDs with the Republicans
• Missouri: ex-bellwether which, since 1996, grew from a state that reliiably backed winners to a Republican Tilt and, eventually, Republican Advantage
• Maryland: last voted Republican in 1988
• Wisconsin: last voted Republican in 1984 (Reagan and his 49-state landslide re-election)
• Minnesota: has not carried for a Republican since Richard Nixon carried 49 states, against George McGovern, with a landslide re-election in 1972; President Obama's carriage of Minn., with re-election, made 2012 the 10th consecutive cycle in which Minnesota carried for the Democratic party. (No other state has that distinction.)


The advantage is overwhelmingly with the Democrats. This does not yet factor that Colorado votes like Virginia. That New Mexico, a bellwether since its first vote in 1912, and fellow bellwether Nevada have voted the same in all elections other than 2000 (the split result in winners for the Electoral College and U.S. Popular Vote). It doesn't yet factor Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, ex-bellwether Delaware, Rhode Island and Hawaii (which have voted the same since the latter's first election, in 1960, and carried for the GOP only with 49-state landslide re-elections, in 1972 and 1984, for Nixon and Reagan), and District of Columbia. It also doesn't factor Iowa, which seems to have taken over for neighboring Missouri, as a bellwether which remarkably produces statewide margins pretty much mirroring the national numbers. In fact, it's had a Democratic tilt since 1988. A Democrat wins … Iowa carries. Pretty much a similar thing in New Hampshire; even though George W. Bush won it, in a Republican pickup for 2000, he lost it to Kerry in 2004 (making him the first GOP to win without N.H.; his father carried it in 1988 by over 26 percentage points, a good 18/19 points redder than that year's national number). A Democrat wins … N.H. carries.

Right now, on the electoral map, a prevailing Democrat's base of states is worth 257 electoral votes. It includes New Hamphire, Iowa, and New Mexico. This is before Nevada. And, of course, the winning map which yields victories in Ohio and Florida; Virginia and Colorado; and, depending on the trajectory of a given election, other states that string together victory.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Like I've said before, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are genuine swing states, but they always end up going for the Dems at the last minute, like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.  Republicans always think they have a chance to carry one or more of those states, but somehow they always come up short, even when the polls are close.

If you believe what the news media tells you, they're "genuine swing states."

Since the 1950s, Pennsylvania has had a Democratic tilt. Every Republican who carried it won it with a statewide margin less than how they performed nationally. And every winning Democrat has carried the state of Pa. … and by a statewide margin greater their national margins.

Wisconsin hasn't voted for a Republican since Ronald Reagan's 49-state landslide re-election in 1984.

And of the three, it is Michigan with the deepest blue as the state is now at least five points more so than how the nation votes. It looked like a swing state on the level of a bellwether in 1984 and 1988; that's because the margins for Mich. were incredibly close to the national numbers. Then Bill Clinton won it in a Democratic pickup as he unseated George Bush in 1992. Since then Mich. has been 2 (1992), 5 (1996, 2000), 6 (2004), 9 (2008), and 6 (2012) points bluer than the national margins.

Look at the past electoral maps, when Democrats had the south and Republicans the north, northeast (etc). We saw Pa., Mich., and Wis. continuously voting the same; voting for the Republicans. In fact, every winning Republican carried Pa. and Mich. from the party's first victory, with Abraham Lincoln in 1860, through Dwight Eisenhower's re-election in 1956. Richard Nixon was the first prevailing Republican who won, in 1968, without Pa. and Mich. In 1968, Wis. did back Nixon. Wis.'s first occurrence of not voting for a winning GOP came in 1924, when it said no to Calvin Coolidge for native son and Progressive nominee Robert LaFollette. In 1988, Bush became the second Republican to win without Wis. as it flipped for losing Democratic challenger Michael Dukakis. In the next election, a Democratic pickup, Wis. naturally backed Clinton who, while carrying the 10 states (plus District of Columbia) which voted for Dukakis, garnered pickups in 22 states which included both Pa. and Mich. (He won them again, with re-election, in 1996.) In 2000, all three were in the column for the losing Democrat, Al Gore, who did win the popular vote. In 2004, all three were again in the column for a losing Democratic nominee, John Kerry, and they were all on board for the 2008 Democratic pickup winner (and re-elected incumbent of 2012) Barack Obama who, just like Clinton, carried the trio in all his presidential elections.

I don't believe it can be said with a straight face that any of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are swing states like commonly associated with other swing states which, in reality, are a combination of competitive and bellwether states.

The news media doesn't think they're swing states; they think they're solidly Dem.  But as Bush demonstrated in 2000 and 2004, Republicans can compete there.  While he never carried any of those states, he came close both times.

[DS0816]

Like I've said before, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are genuine swing states, but they always end up going for the Dems at the last minute, like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.  Republicans always think they have a chance to carry one or more of those states, but somehow they always come up short, even when the polls are close.

If you believe what the news media tells you, they're "genuine swing states."

Since the 1950s, Pennsylvania has had a Democratic tilt. Every Republican who carried it won it with a statewide margin less than how they performed nationally. And every winning Democrat has carried the state of Pa. … and by a statewide margin greater their national margins.

Wisconsin hasn't voted for a Republican since Ronald Reagan's 49-state landslide re-election in 1984.

And of the three, it is Michigan with the deepest blue as the state is now at least five points more so than how the nation votes. It looked like a swing state on the level of a bellwether in 1984 and 1988; that's because the margins for Mich. were incredibly close to the national numbers. Then Bill Clinton won it in a Democratic pickup as he unseated George Bush in 1992. Since then Mich. has been 2 (1992), 5 (1996, 2000), 6 (2004), 9 (2008), and 6 (2012) points bluer than the national margins.

Look at the past electoral maps, when Democrats had the south and Republicans the north, northeast (etc). We saw Pa., Mich., and Wis. continuously voting the same; voting for the Republicans. In fact, every winning Republican carried Pa. and Mich. from the party's first victory, with Abraham Lincoln in 1860, through Dwight Eisenhower's re-election in 1956. Richard Nixon was the first prevailing Republican who won, in 1968, without Pa. and Mich. In 1968, Wis. did back Nixon. Wis.'s first occurrence of not voting for a winning GOP came in 1924, when it said no to Calvin Coolidge for native son and Progressive nominee Robert LaFollette. In 1988, Bush became the second Republican to win without Wis. as it flipped for losing Democratic challenger Michael Dukakis. In the next election, a Democratic pickup, Wis. naturally backed Clinton who, while carrying the 10 states (plus District of Columbia) which voted for Dukakis, garnered pickups in 22 states which included both Pa. and Mich. (He won them again, with re-election, in 1996.) In 2000, all three were in the column for the losing Democrat, Al Gore, who did win the popular vote. In 2004, all three were again in the column for a losing Democratic nominee, John Kerry, and they were all on board for the 2008 Democratic pickup winner (and re-elected incumbent of 2012) Barack Obama who, just like Clinton, carried the trio in all his presidential elections.

I don't believe it can be said with a straight face that any of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are swing states like commonly associated with other swing states which, in reality, are a combination of competitive and bellwether states.

The news media doesn't think they're swing states; they think they're solidly Dem.  But as Bush demonstrated in 2000 and 2004, Republicans can compete there.  While he never carried any of those states, he came close both times.

I have seen the coverage and the news media acts like Pennsylvania and Michigan are competitive. With Wisconsin, not so much in 2008 but more so in 2012 (especially given it is the home state of Mitt Romney's vice-presidential running mate Paul Ryan). With Mich., the mention of it was both in 2008 and 2012. Then people acted shocked John McCain pulled out of Mich. Then McCain's advisors did their "Hail, Mary!" and went into Pa. which MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said was "fool's gold." ("As long as the epicenter of this [Republican] party is in the southeast, they are not going to win the suburbs of Philadelphia.") The news media loves electoral politics as sport … so Pa. and Mich. get mentioned. Wis. had more reason to be mentioned (because George W. Bush came close both times in 2000 and 2004). It will take a national margin of at least five points to be able to win the three. The most any Republican has nabbed, after the 1980s, was Bush's re-election margin, in 2004, of R+2.46. And he lost New Hampshire in that election, a state that previously backed all prevailing Republicans (including his first in 2000). When a Democrat prevails, all three states … carries.

[pbrower2a]

Illinois is going to be much closer in 2016 than in 2012, barring a D blowout. The Favorite Son effect is huge for getting out the vote and establishing familiarity. It went 58-41 for Obama and take out the Favorite Son effect it is more like Michigan or Wisconsin.

McCain won Texas by about 10% less than did Dubya, and Dubya won Texas by about 10% more than did Dole. It works both ways. Look also at Georgia between 1972 and 1984. 

[muon2]

Illinois is going to be much closer in 2016 than in 2012, barring a D blowout. The Favorite Son effect is huge for getting out the vote and establishing familiarity. It went 58-41 for Obama and take out the Favorite Son effect it is more like Michigan or Wisconsin.

The Favorite Son effect was already missing in 2012.

In 2004 Kerry got 48.3% and IL voted 54.8% or +6.5%.
In 2008 Obama had 52.9% with IL at 61.9% or +9.0%.
In 2012 Obama was at 51.0% and IL was 57.6% or +6.6%.

2012 is consistent with 2004 in terms of the Dem lean of the state in the Pres race.